K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. - In all these cases, the order passed detaining the goods by the first respondent and the refusal of the Taxation Special Tribunal to interfere with the said orders are put in issue.

As the import of the goods, the reason for passing the detention order, the ultimate order passed by the first respondent, the refusal to interfere with the same by the Special Tribunal and the argument assailing the said orders on the part of the petitioners and argument on behalf of the Revenue for sustaining the said orders are one and the same, all the cases are taken up together for consideration.

The typical case taken up for consideration is W.P. No. 26751 of 2003. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Calcutta, branches at Secunderabad, Pondicherry and Bangalore, inter alia, involved in trading of plastic granules and are assessees on the file of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Secundrabad, having appropriate registration certificate under the Andbra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Sales Tax Act"). In the course of their business, the petitioner imported 99 M.T.s of high density polythene granules from M/s. Saudi Basic Industrial Corporation, Saudi Arabia, under invoice dated May 21, 2003. On importation of the consignment, the petitioner's clearing agent one M/s. Guru Shipping and Clearing Services cleared the goods on behalf of the petitioner on June 7, 2003 and warehoused the goods at Continental Warehousing Corporation, Madhavaram, Chennai, a certified warehouse under the Customs Act.

While that being so, the first respondent served a goods detention order dated June 7, 2003 by stating the reason that the genuineness of the transactions has to be verified. Incidentally, as the petitioners were faced with a similar detention order on earlier occasion, by their letter dated June 5, 2003, provided complete details of import to the first respondent. In spite of that, the goods detention order was served and by notice dated June 11, 2003 called upon the petitioner to produce certain details as to high-sea sale. The petitioner by their letter dated June 25, 2003 submitted a reply. However, the respondents passed an order levying tax in a sum of Rs. 2,07,900 and a compounding fee of Rs. 4,15,800.

The original goods detention order was taken in O.P. to the Special Tribunal, but the Special Tribunal non-suited the petitioner on the ground that subsequently orders have been passed by the first respondent levying tax and composition fee, the petitioner could seek the remedy before the statutory authority, the said orders are put in issue in all these writ petitions.

Mr. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the goods detention order and subsequent order of the first respondent levying tax and composition fee is without jurisdiction, as there is no taxable sale at the hands of the petitioner. The State Legislature have no competence in levying tax when the goods are in the course of import. Such levy is prohibited by the Constitution under article 286 read with section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. There is no taxable event and as such there is no reason to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has evaded payment of tax as the goods are yet to be cleared by the customs authority. In the absence of any assessment, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to demand compounding fee. The levying of tax and compounding fee by the first respondent in spite of the details furnished is arbitrary, rather unreasonable and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue argued to sustain the order.

We heard the argument of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record.

The fact that the goods were imported by the petitioner and it had been warehoused and yet